Can someone explain what "1st ed feel" is?

[Neqroteqh]

While I agree that there is some good stuff in 2e, you are just digging your own grave here. You have named several modules on my "crap" list... Faction War, Die Vecna Die, the Apocolpyse Stone, the railroad-fest DL modules, and book two of the Night Below, just to name a few.

Now Undermountain, Squaring the Cirlce (from Hellbound) and Dead Gods, on the other hand, are good stuff. Better than anything published for 1e, AFAIAC. (I am still slowly working on an undermountain conversion.)

Faction War, Die Vecna Die, and Apocalypse Stone are all "destroy the campaign setting" modules, so they won't appeal to some. But since I don't think a campaign is complete without it being destroyed (Moorcock and Final Fantasy influence), these modules are indespensable.

As for the DL modules, they're only a "railroad fest" if you run them as such... they make for great epic play. I'd love to see someone come out with another world-spanning epic, "save the world" quest like that one again. (Once again, the influence of Final Fantasy on my conception of gaming is shining through).

As for book 2 of Night Below, it looked just as good as Book 1 and Book 3... I'll be running it shortly. The Rockseer Elves will be interesting, interacting with my Elven/Elven-Multicultural party...

I liked many of them on the basis of the ideas they provided. Theives and Wizards were my favorites. However, the books had no consistency of vision or quality control; they were all done by freelancers with little guiding influence. As a result, they varied wildly in approach and quality. Rules-wise, this made them nigh-unusable. Especially three of the ones you have named: Paladin's, Druid's, and Bard's. (That said, I think that song & silence could have taken a few more notes from the bard book...)

Thieves and Wizards were way to vanilla for my taste. Paladins, Druids, and Bards actually added something to the game- and made my friends want to play characters with those classes for once!

Dragonlance - glad its gone. It never really served as well as a game setting as it did a literary property.

Okay, I'll agree with you there. But I loved the tinker gnomes. And I'd like to see another huge "save the world" quest module.

Spelljammer - had no vision of its own, no underlying conflict to the setting, and forced some lame changes in the cosmology. Glad its gone (that said, it will be making a cameo soon.)

I never played it, all I know was that it was different from most any other setting.

Planescape & Dark Sun will be missed by many. (But in a way, Dark Sun dug its own grave by means of its all-encompassing resolve-everything-at-once metaplot, BID.)

What is it that you people don't like about metaplots? I like metaplots!

Ravenloft - I loved the old Van Richten books. But I really must Vehemently disagree with you that the 3e RL is a shadow of its former self. Have you read the 3e RL book? I think it is a far stronger offering than any previous incarnations of the setting

I'll admit, I haven't read it, I'm just going by hearsay. I would take a look at it, but since I run my own setting and none of the new ravenloft stuff looks very good for cannibalization and absorption into my campaign, I don't plan to buy it any time soon. However, my next campaign is going to take on a darker tone than the current one, so I may take a look.

Part of my appreciation of 2nd edition is romantic- that's what I started out playing, after all, back in 1997. (Not counting the few games of oD&D I played back in 1991-1992, when I was nine years old.) Although I'm 20 now, and a loyal 3e/d20 player, I cut my teeth on 2nd, so it still defines what D&D is to me.

 

[Henry]

1st edition feel means all players and the DM agree to only use thier right brain for the course of the adventure. No logical left brain thinking allowed.

(SNIP REST OF VITUPEROUS RANTING)

On the other hand, for mindless fun you couldnt beat it.

Did you play it? Have you ever played it?

If you have, then as you wish. You experience was obviously different from mine. I had many exciting, chilling, and challenging 1st ed. adventures when I grew up.

If not, then you have no grounds to make your claims. But do not insult that which you have no knowledge of.

 

[Henry]

It's a fascinating thing that, while 90% of the general D&D playing public accepted the 3E rules as a step forward and a good thing, we as a public are VERY divided on the style of D&D we prefer. If WotC tried to cater to one rules style, they would have been assassinated. It is a strength that D&D can still resolve many different styles of play.

 

[Psion]

As for book 2 of Night Below, it looked just as good as Book 1 and Book 3...

Well, book 1 has some interesting investigation and encounters, and book three (and the end of book 2) had some interesting tactical and diplomatic scenarios, most of book two seemed like drudgeing through combat encounter after combat encoutner to me. It needs something more.

And BTW, my disdain for Faction War and Die Vecna Die go beyond the fact that they are campaign ending scenarios (but pretty much spot on for Apocolype Stone...). Faction War is a spectator sport with some irrational story flow (half the time I was thinking "just why would these people do this now...?) And I understand there was a lot of editorial gaffes and exclusions that would have made FW tolerable.

And Die Vecna Die blithely cast aside longstanding conventions of the setting just to accomodate its feeble plot. What made them more disappointing is that they are by authors I respect in other venues. Heck, two of the best written adventures for 3e/D20 are by the same authors IMO. (Not to mention I have already said that Dead Gods is pretty much the best epic adventure romp ever.)

As for the DL modules, they're only a "railroad fest" if you run them as such... they make for great epic play. I'd love to see someone come out with another world-spanning epic, "save the world" quest like that one again. (Once again, the influence of Final Fantasy on my conception of gaming is shining through).

Oh, I love FF, especially III (US). FF has probably been the greatest influence on my gaming in recent years. I'm almost shocked that you sully it by comparing it to DL.

The real problem with the DL series wasn't the adventure/story that they represented, but the way that they were written. They pretty much paced you through the story and provided few alternatives or room for deviation. They were a monument in railraod design. Sure, a DM could correct for that, but that hardly makes the modules worthy of accolades. I could keep my dad's old truck with a screwed up alignment on the road... that doesn't make it a good truck.

 

[Neqroteqh]

Oh, I love FF, especially III (US). FF has probably been the greatest influence on my gaming in recent years. I'm almost shocked that you sully it by comparing it to DL.

The real problem with the DL series wasn't the adventure/story that they represented, but the way that they were written. They pretty much paced you through the story and provided few alternatives or room for deviation. They were a monument in railraod design. Sure, a DM could correct for that, but that hardly makes the modules worthy of accolades. I could keep my dad's old truck with a screwed up alignment on the road... that doesn't make it a good truck.

Actually, there are quite a few different paths and deviations presented in the Dragonlance Classics tome... but even at that, it kind of ends up looking like a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book, and not a D&D adventure. The reason I liked the module, however, was because I had so much fun using it as an outline for a Dragonlance campaign I designed, expanding on elements (I added tactical mass combat scenarios, side plots involving a PC archmage who was cursed before the Cataclysm and was on a quest to redeem himself, an elven princess who was posessed by Fistandantilus (since Raistlin didn't exist)... etc... I even found ways to work in some of my favorite other scenarios). Also, just reading the tome gave me that feeling that I had after reading a good book or playing through a good computer game- no other module (with the exception of Return to the ToH) did that for me. And, although I'm not the fondest of the writing style of Hickman and Weis, I enjoyed the novels. I give the Dragonlance Classics tome a thumbs up for trying, which is more than I can say about any 3rd edition/d20 adventure that I've seen to date, excluding perhaps Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. (However, Prophecies of the Dragon and the upcoming FR "Super adventure" will hopefully force me to eat my words)

 

[Henry]

The real problem with the DL series wasn't the adventure/story that they represented, but the way that they were written. They pretty much paced you through the story and provided few alternatives or room for deviation. They were a monument in railraod design. Sure, a DM could correct for that, but that hardly makes the modules worthy of accolades.

Despite their Amtrak-like qualities, the DL adventures had one huge redeeming quality: You couldn't beat the settings. Everything from the Ruined City of Xak Tsaroth, to the dwarven hold of Pax Tharkas (the best Moria clone I ever saw), to the Carved Dragon where the Pools of Dragonmetal and the finished Dragonlances were held - all were fantastic to drop almost wholesale into anyone's campaign. The maps alone make most of the DL1 - DL14 series worthwhile to buy - If you can get the DL digest of all of the adventures, I recommend it, for the maps if nothing else - though those gatefold covers were truly fantastic.

 

[Orcus]

First edition feel...

I guess I dont see it as anything like Diablo. Instead, I consider Diablo to be a mind-numbing influence of computer gaming on table top playing. I hate Diablo and I hate its influence on roleplaying. For example, in Diablo, the goal was to clear out every room on every level. That isnt the point to me.

In addition to echoing all the points made by the good Colonel, I want to add the following:

First edition is about heroic roleplaying. And if there is a lack of story, that is because the DM sucked. 1e gave people breathing room. It didnt do all your thinking for you. D&D is a creative exercise. That is the fun. Fill in the blanks with your OWN imagination.

Also, 1e was a time when we actually made our own campaign worlds. With 2e, that all changed.

For those of you who think 1e didnt have story, I use this analogy:

Think of Star Wars. That is classic 1e roleplaying: a band of heroes with a noble objective, descend into a pit of evil (death star) against overwhelming odds (tons of stormtroopers), to retrieve a princess (you know who) and a legendary artifact (death star plans) with a dramatic encounter with an evil cleric at the end (Vader).

That is a classic 1e adventure. How can you say there is no story there? Or that story is irrelevant?

Here is what we do in making modules: we detail the death star. The fact that the user decides to say "ok you land at the death star and start killing stuff" doesnt mean there is no story. It means they opted NOT to have any. And that is OK.

We just dont do your story thinking for you.

A dungeon (like the death star) is a setting for high fantasy sword and sorcery adventure.

You have breathing room to think for yourself and make it what you want it to be.

I know there are many who would say "then why buy it if I have to do that work." I guess I would say "why play D&D if you dont want to do that work?" For me, the fun of D&D IS doing that work. I dont presume to know what your players or your world or your campaign is like--and 1e products didnt either. Only you can fill that in. It isnt unreasonable of us to leave that to you. In fact, I always found it insulting when designers forced stuff on me.

So think about it like this:

First edition: We provide the death star, you provide Luke, Han and company and the reason they are there.

Another key factor is the source of the "feel". For example, go read Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser stories. Or the original REHoward's Conan. Or Moorcock's Elric. THAT is what we are trying to recreate with 1e feel.

Certainly it is a divisive issue. When I started Necromancer I considered riding the fence and risking pleasing no one. I chose to make the type of products I liked (cause, hey, I wanted to have fun ) and decided to take a focused approach. I like challenging adventures of heroic proportions. I have absolutely no desire to worry about coffegrowing elves. To me that is a sociology experiment, not D&D.

But hey, that is the joy of d20! To each his own! I fully respect all who dont like 1e. They are just as "correct" in liking what they like as I am in liking what I like.

Perhaps one day there will be a company that is "Third Edition Rules, Second Edition Feel" that will make really setting specific adventures with forcefed stories that arent very challenging and are written for a party of rapier wielding bards with no combat skills. But that isnt my cup of tea.

By the way, whoever mentioned Emerikol the Chaotic gets two thumbs up from me. That was one of the most evocative pictures ever (plus by my all time favorite artist Trampier).

Clark

 

[WSmith]

Ah, yes, my mentor chimes in.

This is why I am drawn to NG, give me the location, and the players and I will figure out how and why they are there. It may not fit everyone's sytle of DMing, but it sure fits mine. Just as story based published adventures are not my thing, I am sure others find them very useful.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

First edition feel...

<part of great post snipped>
Perhaps one day there will be a company that is "Third Edition Rules, Second Edition Feel" that will make really setting specific adventures with forcefed stories that arent very challenging and are written for a party of rapier wielding bards with no combat skills. But that isnt my cup of tea.

But then again the "real" roleplayers will say that is what RPG's are about. Roleplaying your characters at a dinner party with plenty of Charisma checks and no action.

Gimme Vault of the DROW!!!

 

[Pielorinho]

Maybe I'm taking out out of context, Orcus, and I apologize. But here's what stood out most in your post to me:

I have absolutely no desire to worry about coffegrowing elves. To me that is a sociology experiment, not D&D.

See, if coffeegrowing elves aren't D&D, then I don't want to be playing D&D. Is it a mark of distinction that the founder of Necromancer games has made fun of my campaign setting? heheh.

I'm all about the Ursula LeGuin approach to fantasy. People have real motivations, cultures are in upheaval, death is sad, morality is tenuous. Window-dressing is as important as mechanics. Characters come with half a dozen pages of background. Religions are fleshed out, and aren't just limited to polytheism or monotheism. Reality itself is uncertain, but its nature is central to the game.

I love that my players can discuss the merits of elvish coffee over dinner with the head of their religious order, and that the conversation can continue in that vein for fifteen minutes before the boss gets around to blackmailing them.

That's certainly possible in 1E, but it's not First-Edition Feel. As you suggest, first-edition feel doesn't have a whole lot of sociological thought in it.

It is, as you say, a different style of playing, and it's good that D20 can accommodate so many different styles. But if you think that the alternative to bare-bones, plausibility-challenged dungeons is railroading adventures, then I think your scope of gameplay is limited.

Daniel